institutional and home-based factors influencing student
TRANSCRIPT
INSTITUTIONAL AND HOME-BASED FACTORS INFLUENCING
STUDENT DROP-OUT IN DAY SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN KATHIA NI
DISTRICT, MACHAKOS COUNTY KENYA
Annastasia Kakuvi Mutinda
A Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Award of the Degree of Master of Education in Educational Planning
University of Nairobi
2013
ii
DECLARATION
This research project is my original work and has not been presented for a degree
in any other University.
___________________________________
Annastasia Kakuvi Mutinda Reg No: E55/P/8418/02
This research project has been submitted for examination with our approval as the
university supervisors.
____________________________________
Dr. Rose M. Obae Lecturer
Department of Educational Administration and Planning, University of Nairobi
_____________________________________
Dr. Jeremiah M. Kalai Lecturer
Department of Educational Administration and Planning, University of Nairobi
iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate my work to my husband Francis Kanyambu, my children Brigid
Mwende, Daniel Kanyambu and Ruth Ndindi, my parents Albert Ndiso and Ruth
Ndindi, my mother-in-law Agnes Kanyambu, and Linda McIntosh, my Peace
Corps daughter.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to acknowledge my supervisors, Dr. Rose Obae and Dr. Jeremiah Kalai,
Chairperson of Department of Educational Planning Dr. Nyagah for their
assistance.
I wish also to recognize the headteachers, teachers and students of selected
schools in Kathiani district; who set their time aside to complete the
questionnaire. Many thanks also to my colleagues at work and “the remnants”,
my prayer group; for encouragement and support and prayers during the course of
my study.
My deep appreciation for my husband Francis, my children Brigid Mwende,
Daniel Kanyambu and Ruth Ndindi; my brothers and sisters, my parents Mr. and
Mrs. Albert Ndiso, Agnes Kanyambu and my entire family; for genuine support,
patience, understanding throughout the time spent on this project when they
needed my attention. Also my appreciation goes to my faithful typist Mary
Wasike who was patient and understanding.
To all, I say thank you and God bless.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Page Declaration .............................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................. iv
Table of contents ..................................................................................................... v
List of tables ........................................................................................................... ix
List of figures .......................................................................................................... x
Abbreviations and acronyms ................................................................................. xi
Abstract ................................................................................................................. xii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the study .................................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of the problem .................................................................................. 9
1.3 Purpose of the study ........................................................................................ 10
1.4 Objectives of the study ................................................................................... 10
1.5 Research questions .......................................................................................... 11
1.6 Significance of the study ................................................................................. 12
1.7 Limitations of the study .................................................................................. 12
1.8 Delimitations of the study ............................................................................... 12
1.9 Basic assumptions of the study ...................................................................... 13
1.10 Definition of significant terms ...................................................................... 14
1.11 Organization of the study .............................................................................. 15
vi
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 17
2.2 Family’s social – economic background and students’ dropout ..................... 17
2.2.1 Physical facilities in the household and students’ drop out ......................... 18
2.2.2 Influence of households’ monthly income on students’ drop out ................ 18
2.2.3 Educational attainment of parents and students’ drop out ........................... 20
2.2.4 Family size and students drop out ................................................................ 20
2.5 Influence of peer pressure on student dropout ............................................... 21
2.6 Government policies and interventions influencing dropout rates ................. 21
2.7 Suggestions for mitigating students’ drop out in public secondary schools ... 22
2.7.1 Expansion of secondary schools infrastructure ........................................... 22
2.6.2 Reducing cost of secondary education to households ................................. 23
2.6.3 Partnerships and local resource mobilization ............................................. 23
2.7 Summary of literature review ......................................................................... 24
2.8 Retention theories, models and concepts ........................................................ 25
2.9 Conceptual framework .................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 28
3.2 Research design .............................................................................................. 28
3.3 Target population ............................................................................................ 28
3.4 Sample size and sampling techniques ............................................................. 29
vii
3.5 Research instruments ...................................................................................... 29
3.5.1 Instrument validity ....................................................................................... 30
3.5.2 Instrument reliability .................................................................................... 30
3.6 Data collection procedures .............................................................................. 31
3.7 Data analysis techniques ................................................................................. 32
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 33
4.2 Questionnaire return rate ................................................................................ 33
4.3 Demographic data of the respondents ............................................................. 34
4.3.1 Gender of the headteachers and teachers ..................................................... 34
4.3.2 Duration that head teachers and class teachers had taught after graduation 35
4.3.3 Headteachers’ and teachers’ years of teaching in their current schools ...... 36
4.3.4 Duration of service as class teacher ............................................................. 37
4.3.5 Type of school ............................................................................................. 38
4.4 Influence of family’s social-economic background on students’ dropout ...... 39
4.4.1 Family size ................................................................................................... 39
4.4.2 Number of siblings and level of school completed ...................................... 40
4.4.3 Number of children in the family who dropped from school ...................... 41
4.4.4 Monthly income of households and drop outs ............................................. 43
4.4.5 Parental academic support to students ......................................................... 44
4.4.5 Other socio-economic factors influencing students’ dropout ...................... 45
4.5 Factors related to peer pressure and student dropout in secondary schools ... 46
viii
4.6 Institutional factors that influenced students’ dropout rates ........................... 48
4.7 Influence of government interventions student dropout ................................. 49
4.8 Respondent’s suggested possible measures to mitigate dropouts ................... 50
4.9 Summary of the chapter .................................................................................. 52
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 53
5.2 Summary of the study ..................................................................................... 54
5.3 Summary of the findings ................................................................................. 55
5.4 Conclusions of the study ................................................................................. 57
5.5 Recommendations of the study ....................................................................... 58
5.4 Suggestions for further research ..................................................................... 59
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 60
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 64
Appendix A: Letter of introduction ...................................................................... 64
Appendix B: Questionnaire for the head teacher .................................................. 65
Appendix C: Questionnaire for form four class teachers ...................................... 72
Appendix D: Questionnaire for form four students .............................................. 76
Appendix E: Authorization letter .......................................................................... 82
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Enrolment in secondary school by gender 2008 - 2012 in Kathiani ...... 6
Table 1.2: Dropout rates of Kathiani district 2008-2012 ........................................ 8
Table 1.3: Dropout rates of Kangundo district 2008-2012 ..................................... 9
Table 4.4: Distribution of headteachers and teachers by gender .......................... 34
Table 4.5: Headteachers’ and teachers’ responses on years they had taught after graduation ............................................................................................................. 35
Table 4.6: Teachers and headteachers responses on the number of years of teaching in school ................................................................................................. 36
Table 4.7: Duration as class teachers .................................................................... 37
Table 4.8: Type of school ..................................................................................... 38
Table 4.9: Students’ response to number of children in the family ...................... 40
Table 4.10: Number of siblings and level of education completed ...................... 41
Table 4.11: Students’ response on the number of children in the family who dropped secondary school ..................................................................................... 42
Table 4.12: Reasons for students’ absenteeism .................................................... 45
Table 4.13: Peer pressure related factors and student dropouts ............................ 47
Table 4.14: Head teachers’ and teachers’ response on institutional factors influencing students’ dropout ............................................................................... 49
Table 4.15: Headteachers and teachers suggestions on possible measures to mitigate dropouts .................................................................................................. 51
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Relationship between variables in institutional and home based factors influencing students drop out ................................................................................ 26
Figure 4.2: Family income per month .................................................................. 43
Figure 4.3: Students’ response on parental support .............................................. 44
Figure 4.4: Headteachers’ response of government policies, strategies and interventions. ......................................................................................................... 50
xi
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CDF Constituency Development Fund
EFA Education for All
FGM Female Genital Mutilation
FPE Free Primary Education
FSE Free Secondary Education
GoK Government of Kenya
MoE Ministry of Education
MoEST Ministry of Education Science and Technology
NACSTI National Council of Science, Technology and Innovation
UNESCO United Nations Educational Science and Cultural Organizations
xii
ABSTRACT
This study sought to establish the influence of institutional and home-based factors on students’ dropout in day secondary schools in Kathiani district, Machakos county, Kenya. The study sought to determine the influence of socio-economic background, peer pressure, government policy on funding education, and institutional factors on secondary school day students drop out. The study also formulated five questions related to the objectives. Descriptive survey design was adopted for this study. Target population included head teachers and class teachers who were sampled from public secondary schools in Kathiani district, Machakos County. The sample comprised of 40 teachers, 260 students and 14 head teachers. The study regarded them as having full knowledge on institutional and home-based factors on students’ dropout in Kathiani district. Therefore, they were to be used for analysis throughout the study. Data was collected using head teachers’ and class teachers’ questionnaires. Data was then analysed using quantitative and qualitative approach which involved descriptive statistical procedures, that is, frequencies and percentages. The study established that institutional and home-based factors had an influence on students’ dropout in public day secondary schools in Kathiani district. Data analysis established that some students in day secondary schools in Kathiani district drop out due to fee problems (36%), family background problems (40%) and for others, peer pressure (24%). The study, however, showed that there were other socio-economic factors leading to dropout of students. It also established that the teachers, head teachers and students forwarded the suggestions of giving CDF bursaries to the needy students, offering guidance and counselling, sensitizing parents on the need for educating all children and providing feeding programmes to needy students in schools in hardship places. The study recommended that teachers and head teachers to offer constant guidance and counselling to students in school to enable them complete schooling and discover their careers in life; the government of Kenya to continue providing bursaries to needy students to curb dropouts; parents to offer full support to their students and also to work hand in hand with teachers to curb issues of absenteeism and enable students complete school; and day schools to be equipped with adequate teaching and learning resources to enable students complete school. The study suggested that there is need to carry out a study on the role Ministry of Education and other collaborating partners to curb dropout in public secondary schools in Kenya. There is also need to carry out a study on the relationship between educational level of the parents and the level of educational attainment of the children.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the study
Investment in education is amongst the top priorities in the political agenda in
many countries. This is because of the important role it plays in social and
economic development. Education is also a means to achieving other ends
(Bogonko, 1992). For example, when a country has advanced in educational
development she is likely to achieve other benefits such as economic growth,
health, democracy and poverty eradication (Watkins, 1999). The education of
youth is today widely recognized as the most effective development investment a
country can make. It is one of the criteria pathways to remote social and economic
development (World Bank, 1998). There is an interlink age between education,
health and the economy. For example, access to good quality education can
provide youth with the tools to exercise their basic rights and access services
otherwise denied. Educated mothers are more aware of immunization services for
their children, which they use 50 percent more often than mothers who have not
had education. Each additional year of schooling helps women combat infant
mortality, which drops by 5 to 10 percent (Schultz, 1993).
The right to education has been recognized in numerous international agreements.
These include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the
2
5Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on
the Rights of the Child, the Beijing Platform for Action, the Education for All
forums (in 1990 and 2000) and recently, the Millennium Summit in 2000. None
however has succeeded in providing equal and widespread access to quality
education. Despite the failure of these agreements, every decade or so,
governments sign new Conventions capturing the same goal, pushing off the
target date (Education for All by 2000, then by 2005 and now by 2015) and
claiming to ‘renew commitment’ to educating all children.
According to Heneveld (2006), education is life requirement for all human beings
since it is part and parcel of their day to day activities. This means that education
is required by all human beings regardless of their gender and nationality. There is
an international understanding that education is the beginning of fighting against
poverty and improving the standard of people’s life. It increases productivity to
the world market (Republic of Kenya, 2006). Importance of education is critical
given that nearly a billion people cannot read and write and 300 million of world
school aged children are not in school. Two thirds of those who cannot read and
write are women, and 60% of the children are not in school (World Bank, 2003).
The need for better education seems unlimited. Ignorance, narrowness of
outwork, inability to cope with personal and social problems, among other
symptoms of insufficient education is dominant features of contemporary life
(United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO],
2005). This means as societies develop and become more complex and artificial,
3
the need for holistic education increases. No wonder this is why UNESCO (2005),
maintains that survival, internal balance and economic growth depend on
education as a means to enjoy life and participate in cultural development.
Part 2 Section 6 of the children’s Bill passed by the Kenyan parliament in 2001
states that: “every child shall be entitled to education, the provision of which shall
be the responsibility of the Government and parents”. The Children’s Bill is a
concrete manifestation of action to domesticate the 1989 UNCRC, and other
international conventions, Treaties and Declarations which have implications for
the protection, care and education of children (Republic of Kenya, 2001).
Kenya and other nation are facing a dropout crisis. The number of students
leaving schooling without completing secondary education is quite alarming
(Alexander, 2008). This has become a great concern for many countries of the
world. Therefore, many countries are coming up with policies, strategies and
interventions to improve school progression and reduce the numbers of students
dropping out of school (UNESCO, 2010). Children are starting primary school in
greater numbers than ever before but dropout rates are significant at secondary
school leading to low completion rates in many countries (World Bank, 2007). As
a result of substantial rates of dropout and non completion of secondary school
many children are leaving schooling without acquiring the most basic skills
(Alexander, 2008).
4
According to UNESCO (1998) Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article
2b, states that every child has the right to education. To achieve this, governments
of the world, the Government of Kenya (GoK) included, have laid down policies
and allocated money in the National Budget to Provision of education for all
(MoEST, 2005). This is because failure to complete a basic cycle of secondary
school not only limits future opportunities for the children but also represents a
significant drain or the limited resources that countries have for the provision of
secondary education. According to the World Bank (2007), the Governments of
the world, Kenya included, for example allocated 42 percent of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) towards public education percent was allocated towards secondary
school. With a secondary school dropout rate of 65 percent in 2007, it is estimated
that nearly half a million school places were taken up by children who fail to
complete secondary school. In monetary terms, this broadly represented an annual
expenditure of 60 million dollars, 1.3 percent of GDP in 2007, on education of
children who probably left schooling without any basic skills. This is a worldwide
concern which reckons the need for researchers to carry out studies for there
seems to be home based factors and institutional factors leading to school
dropout.
School dropout rates are an indication of failure of an education system. Young
people who drop out of high school are unlikely to have the minimum skills and
credentials necessary to function in today's increasingly complex society and
technological workplace. The completion of high school is required for accessing
5
post-primary education and is a minimum requirement for most jobs (U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2001) High
school dropouts are more likely to be unemployed than high school completers
(Caspi, Wright, Moffat and Silva, 1998, Miller, Mulvey and Martin, 1995).
Dropping out of school has multiple and complex reasons with the relative
incidence of particular factors influenced by countries, situations and educational
development, unsafe overcrowding and poorly equipped schools with inadequate
trained teachers contribute to pupil dropout. Even in the best equipped schools in
many developed countries they many not be able to keep students from dropping
out where economic hardship or poverty is not the course. The ultimate decision
to leave school happens when personal financial, home or employment problems
concede with children lack of confidence in school. The school has the ability to
give them adequate support (UNSECO, 2007).
According to the Ministry of Education MoE (2007) there are constraints in
attaining the goals of Education for All (EFA) to realize vision 2030. The
completion rates in secondary schools are low due to the dropout of the students.
Reports by the MoE reveal that despite enormous gains on access in education,
there are dropouts of students in secondary school and a decline in completion
rates (MoEST, 2005). Table 1.1 shows enrolment by gender in secondary schools
in Kenya.
6
Table 1.1
Enrolment in secondary school by gender 2008 - 2012 in Kathiani
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Form M F M F M F M F M F
1 272 257 290 265 350 329 410 389 525 486
2 251 226 259 258 310 298 369 345 487 438
3 210 100 201 167 285 216 302 286 452 405
4 97 76 105 96 169 125 321 216 403 376
Total 830 659 855 786 1114 968 1402 1236 1867 1705
Source: Ministry of Education, Kathiani District (2012)
From Table 1.1, we can easily point out that in all secondary school levels the
proportionate loss between each successive year of schooling is great for both
boys and girls (MoEST), 2005) at each level. Overall, only slightly more than half
the students enrolled in form 1 proceeds to form 4. Currently, dropout rate is still
a key area of concern at secondary school level (MoE, 2O12).
According to Hunt (2008), Lewin (2008), Apiah and Adu-Yeboah (2009) cited in
UNESCO (2010), there are often precursors to dropping out, where students could
be seen to be at risk or vulnerable to early withdrawal. These include grade
repetition, low achievement, overage enrollers and children who have regular
absences or previous temporary withdrawals from school.
7
In Kenya, poverty seems to interact with other points of social disadvantage,
together with institutional and home-based factors putting further pressure on
vulnerable and marginalized to dropout out of school. Orphans, migrants, lower
scheduled tribe children and children from minority language groups but not all
contexts, have disrupted retention to education and are more prone to dropout
(UNESCO, 2010). From the empirical evidences, it seems also evident that
children whose parents have no education at all or have received low level of
education, most probably, may not attend schooling for long. Nevertheless,
children who seem to have experienced poor health or malnutrition and child
labor terminate their schooling at an early age (UNESCO, 2010).
Young people in Kenya aged 16 and 17 years seem to have a higher proportion of
school dropout. Most researchers indicate that the system of education provision
at the community level generates conditions that seem to ultimately impact on the
likelihood of children to dropout from school (MoEST, 2005).
Poor results, together with personal and family level factors, seem to jeopardize
meaningful retention in education for many students. As a result, many children
are registered in schools but fail to complete or progress and drop out of school
because they seem to be demoralized and develop perceptions of how poor
education will influence their lifestyle and career possibilities and life chances in
the labor market (Chugh 2011). From the empirical evidence, dropout rates for the
previous years per streams are as shown in Table 1.2.
8
Table 1.2: Dropout rates of Kathiani district 2008-2012
Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Form 2 0.136 0.103 0.104 0.106 0.109
Form 3 0.221 0.246 0.176 0.176 0.160
Form 4 0.255 0.269 0.299 0.308 0.311
Source: Kathiani District Education Office (2013).
From the Table, it is evident that the drop-out rates at Form 4 are so high, each
year, compared to Form 2 and Form 3. The results indicate that when students
reach Form 3 and Form 4 is when they really drop out of school. This is what
reckons the need of this study to find out whether there institutional and home-
based factors influencing students to drop out in Kathiani district for the past five
years. However, there was also need to find out the drop out rates for the past five
years from the neighbouring district, Kangundo. Table 1.4 below gives data on
drop out rates for Kangundo district.
9
Table 1.3: Dropout rates of Kangundo district 2008-2012
Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Form 2 0.102 0.093 0.094 0.096 0.090
Form 3 0.101 0.106 0.176 0.178 0.160
Form 4 0.135 0.149 0.194 0.208 0.211
Source: Kangundo District Education Office (2013).
From the Table, it is clear that drop-out rates are still high at Form 3 and Form 4
just like in Kathiani district. However, what reckons the need for this study is the
fact that the difference in drop out rates in Form 3 and Form 4, in both districts,
are so high. Kathiani district has high figures of drop-out rates compared to
Kangundo district.
1.2 Statement of the problem
Dropout rates in Kathiani district are very high compared to other neighbouring
districts in Machakos county. For the past four years, even with the Government
of Kenya coming up with efforts of implementing free secondary education; it is
still evident that secondary school dropout rates are high in most counties in the
nation. Throughout the country, it is clear that the number of children enrolled in
schools has increased over time due to free day secondary education. The
government of Kenya (GoK), with the support of donor agencies, Non-
10
governmental organizations (NGOs) and other collaborative partners, has strived
to enhance the participation and access in education. However, the GOK has even
set up policies and interventions to prevent drop out (UNESO, 2010).
Despite all these efforts, dropout rates still remain high in most secondary schools
in Kenya. A significant proportion of students who start secondary school are not
completing this cycle. Drop out across gender has continued to persist. Kathiani
district like many other parts of Kenya experiences drop out of students in
secondary schools. Hence, the problem being investigated is what institutional,
home based, social-economic, and peer pressure factors influence drop out of
students from day secondary schools in Kathiani district?
1.3 Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to investigate institutional and home-based factors
influencing student drop-out in day secondary schools in Kathiani district,
Machakos County.
1.4 Objectives of the study
The following were the guiding objectives of the study:
i. To determine the influence of families’ socio-economic backgrounds
(culture, parental education, family economic status) on day secondary
school students drop out in Kathiani district
11
ii. To assess the factors related to peer pressure that influence students’ drop
out in day secondary schools in Kathiani district
iii. To examine the extent to which government policy on funding of
education influence day secondary school students’ dropout rates in
Kathiani district
iv. To establish the institutional based factors influencing secondary school
students’ dropout rates in Kathiani district
v. To come up with suggestions for mitigating students drop out among day
secondary school students in Kathiani district
1.5 Research questions
From the objectives, the research questions to guide the study were formulated as
follows:
i. To what extent does family’s socio-economic background (culture,
parental education, family economic status) influence students drop out in
day secondary schools in Kathiani district?
ii. What are the related to peer pressure that influence students’ drop out in
secondary schools in Kathiani district?
iii. How does government policy on funding of education influence students’
dropout rates in day secondary school in Kathiani district?
iv. What are other institutional based factors influencing day secondary
school students’ dropout rates in Kathiani district?
12
v. What measures need to be put in place to mitigate students drop out
among secondary school in Kathiani district?
1.6 Significance of the study
The study findings of this research would provide useful information to the
students in the district and other stakeholders on the importance of retention and
completion of the secondary school cycle. This information would assist
education planners to design more effective strategies or interventions to the
problem in schools. Parents and teachers, on the other hand would use the
information from this study to guide boys and girls on completing their education.
The study can also be used by other researchers who would want to carry out
research in future.
1.7 Limitations of the study
The limitation might be the lack of adequate records kept on the students drop
out, hence, causing delay in filling of questionnaires. This might cause varied
responses from the respondents and hence could affect the findings. In most cases,
day scholars live in close proximity to the school hence, the students can assist in
identifying the drop outs for research purposes.
1.8 Delimitations of the study
According to Mutai (2000), delimitation addresses how a study can be narrowed
in scope. In this study, the geographical area was delimited to Kathiani district in
13
Machakos county. The study was confined to only day secondary schools within
the district. Boarding schools were not included since the factors that affect
students in day schools are different from those that affect students in boarding
schools. The study will also be delimited to headteachers, teachers and students.
Parents and other stakeholders were not included in the study since it was deemed
that headteachers, teachers and students would give the required information. The
teachers and students from private schools were not the central focus of the study
because the scope of this research was mainly on public secondary schools.
1.9 Basic assumptions of the study
The following were assumptions of this study:
i. All respondents were to give information without bias.
ii. Respondents would be capable of identifying factors influencing student
drop-out in day secondary schools in Kathiani district.
iii. The respondents will be available to fill the questionnaire
14
1.10 Definition of significant terms
The study gave definitions of significant terms as follows:
Access refers to availability of education at secondary school level for those
eligible and meets the desired cohort.
Drop-out refers to any student who leaves school prematurely irrespective of
his/her grade before completing secondary cycle.
Home based factors refer to family characteristics of a student for example
family income, parent’s education, single parenting, parental attitudes and family
culture.
Institutional factors refer to school size, number of teachers, co-curricular
activities, school organization and practices.
Peer pressure refers to the influence exerted by a peer group or student
encouraging other students to change their attitudes, values or behavior in order to
conform to group norms related to drop out.
Policies and interventions refer to government strategies that would help curb
students’ drop out or encourage those students who dropped earlier to return to
school.
Retention refers to the continued stay of a student throughout the secondary
school cycle.
15
Socio-economic background refers to influence of families’ culture, parental
education, families’ economic status and number of siblings.
Stake-holders refer to those groups without whose support, the school would
cease to exist, for example, teachers, head teachers, sponsors and parents.
1.11 Organization of the study
This study is organized in five chapters. The first one is the introduction which
consists of the background the study, statement of the problem, the purpose of the
study, objectives and research questions, significance of the study, limitations,
scope of the study, assumptions and definition of the significant terms. The
second chapter is on literature review which consists of introduction, family’s
social-economic background influencing students to drop-out, home- based
factors influencing students to drop-out, effect of peer pressure leading to drop-
out, extent to which the implementation of government policies and interventions
influence student dropout rates, school-based initiatives to stem students drop out
rates in Kathiani district, theoretical and conceptual frame work.
The third chapter describes the methodology that was used in the study under the
following sub-headings: Introduction, research design, target population, sample
size and sampling procedures, research instruments, instrument validity,
instrument reliability, data collection procedures and data analysis techniques.
The fourth chapter is on data analysis, presentation and interpretation. The fifth
16
chapter gives the summary of the findings, discussion, conclusion,
recommendations and suggestions for further research.
17
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Literature review in this chapter focuses on the family’s social-economic
background influencing students to drop-out, home-based factors influencing
students to drop-out, and effect of peer pressure leading to drop-out. In addition,
the study tried to establish the extent to which the implementation of government
policies and interventions influence student dropout rates, and institutional factors
initiatives to stem students drop out rates in Kathiani district.
2.2 Family’s social – economic background and students’ dropout
Students dropping out of secondary school before completion have become a
challenge for teachers and educational planners. In many public secondary
schools, students from low-income or ethnic minority families are highly
dropping out something that has become problematic (Haycock & Huang, 2001)
even as the nations’ general educational level has increased (Aillow, 2003).
Family’s social-economic background may act against students’ continuation in
school (Chugh, 2011). Households’ decisions to send the children to school or to
discontinue their studies depend on the environmental, social and economic
compulsions they are faced with (Chugh, 2011) as discussed.
18
2.2.1 Physical facilities in the household and students’ drop out
Basing on Chugh (2011) the students living in the slums are devoid of basic
infrastructural facilities like toilet and drinking water. Inadequate and poor quality
of infrastructural and physical facilities negatively influences education of the
students. According to McNeal (1999); Rumbergez and Larson (1998); and Pong
and Ju (2000) cited in Chugh (2011), due to non-availability of water in the
individual household, the students are at many times given the responsibility of
collecting water from the river, the tanker or any other source available and hence
consuming time for schooling. In addition, poor housing facilities do not provide
the space for students to study in peace. For instance, if the electricity connection
is not available, it is not possible for students to study at home in the evening or
late night. Globally, these factors pointed out could be some of the predictors to
students’ drop out in public secondary schools.
2.2.2 Influence of households’ monthly income on students’ drop out
The direct and indirect costs of schooling can exclude some children from school.
One of the most important direct costs underlying the process of drop out is
school fees where these are levied (Hunter & May, 2002 cited in Chugh, 2011).
Lack of money to buy essential school materials for children’s schooling is likely
to cause lack of enrolment in the first place and potentially high dropout at a
larger stage (Ananga, 2011 cited in Chugh, 2011).
19
The social-economic status, most commonly measured by parental education and
income, is a powerful prediction of school achievement and dropout behaviour of
students (Bryk & Thum, 1989 cited in Chugh, 2011). High parental income
allows them to provide more resources to support their children’s education,
including access to better quality schools, private tuitions and more support for
learning within home. During the financial crisis, schooling of the students
becomes the first casualty in poor households. In most developing countries,
Kenya included, households pay for more than one quarter (28 percent) of the
costs to send the students to secondary schools (UNESCO, 2010). This
expenditure poses a very real barrier for students of poor families.
In Kenya, the dropout rates among the children of economically vulnerable
families have gone up due to lack of resources to pay for the costs of education
for their children that are not covered by the fee free educational policy (Ackers et
al, 2001 cited in UNESCO, 2010). In families whose wage earnings of parents are
low, children may be called to supplement household income either by working or
by taking on other household responsibilities to free up other household members
for work (Chugh, 2011). This is likely to increase the risk that children drop out
from education since completion rates are low in poor households. Family income
is linked to the affordability of education and as a result has a direct impact on
whether children attend education. If children attend education, changes in the
financial situation of parents, as reflected by the volatility of family income, may
push some children out of education (Chugh, 2011).
20
2.2.3 Educational attainment of parents and students’ drop out
The education level of parents also influences the continuation of students in
school. Duryea and Ersado (2003) observe that parental education is one of the
most consistent determinants of students’ education. Basing on empirical
evidences from nations of the world, Kenya included, higher parental education is
associated with increased access to education, higher attendance rates and lower
dropout rates (Grant& Hallman, 2006 cited Chugh, 2011). Parents, who have
attained or certain educational level, might want their children to achieve at least
the same level. Parents with low levels of education are more likely to have
children who do not attend school. It they do, they tend to drop out in greater
numbers and engage in more income generating activities than children of parents
with high levels of education (Duryea & Ersado, 2003).
2.2.4 Family size and students drop out
Family size is another factor that influences students’ schooling cycle greatly.
Enyegue (2000) cited in Chugh (2011) states that in comparison to students with
fewer siblings, students with more siblings tend to enroll later, repeat classes more
often and drop out of school earlier. In addition, Enyegue (2000) states that with
larger family size, the financial burden potential workload is greater, students are
less likely to attend school and often drop out. If the family size is greater and
parents do not have sufficient family monthly income to sustain children in
school, then there is a likelihood of children dropping out of school.
21
2.5 Influence of peer pressure on student dropout
Peer pressure is a major factor that influences student drop out in schools. Failure
of students to find positive social relationships in schools leads to drop out
(Croninger & Lee, 2001). Croninger and Lee (2001) continue to observe that
positive relationships between teachers and students and among students and a
climate of shared purpose and concern have been cited as key elements in schools
that hold students until graduation. Opiyo (2008) notes that with current social-
technological changes and educational demands, counseling is a major concern
for in-school youths to enable them plan and prepare for post secondary
schooling. The socio-economic status of a student’s neighbourhood is more
associated with the probability of dropping out than adolescents’ delinquent
behavior, student attachment to school and parents, and parental control over
adolescent behavior. Moreover, students in socio-economically distressed
neighbourhoods feel that school completion offers little either to improve the
quality of life in their neighbourhood or to provide mobility into a better one
(UNESCO, 2010).
2.6 Government policies and interventions influencing dropout rates
Countries of the world have come up with policies and interventions designed to
tackle dropout. These policies and interventions would influence some
improvement in the dropout rates. However, the gap that this study seeks to
research on is that dropout rates still remain in most countries despite the fact that
policies and interventions have been set up.
22
Basing on Education for All (EFA) program, countries of the world have adopted
Free Primary Education (FPE) and Free Secondary Education (FSE) to enable
students complete their education. Besides, there are Constituency Development
Fund (CDF), bursary scheme and also scholarships from Banks and other
Development agencies to enable children from poor family background to
complete their education (Republic of Kenya, 2007).
2.7 Suggestions for mitigating students’ drop out in public secondary schools
The following are the institutional-based initiatives to stem students drop out rates
in schools.
2.7.1 Expansion of secondary schools infrastructure
Globally, transition from primary to secondary school is usually pegged on the
number of available spaces in secondary schools. Basing on the Sub-Saharan
countries of the world, Kenya included, due to the limited number of schools,
about half of the pupils completing primary schools lack opportunities to enroll in
secondary education. In addition to shortage of school spaces, there seems to be
uneven distribution of schools in some African countries, which increases
difficulties of access in some areas. Basing on the GoK (2007) there is an
envisioned growth in secondary school enrolment assuming a class size of 45
students. The number of classrooms required is projected to increase from 22,914
classrooms in 2008 to 41,649 in 2010 and 56,313 in 2015. This is based on the
simulation results and the projected gross enrolment rate. It is also assumed that
23
the gross enrolment rate remains relatively high above 100%. And that in Arid
and Semi arid lands gross enrolment increases from 22% to 45%.
2.6.2 Reducing cost of secondary education to households
Secondary school education attracts various categories of costs. These costs
include; tuition and boarding fees, shouldered by the households and teachers’
remuneration shouldered by the government. The government has put up
mechanisms of reducing costs related to secondary school education by starting
free secondary education and making CDF available to parents (GOK, 2008).
Besides, other nations of the world are trying to allocate time between work and
school (Chugh, 2011).
2.6.3 Partnerships and local resource mobilization
Globally, sustainable secondary education expansion requires building of
sustainable partnerships and mobilizing of local resources. These resources can be
accessed from local government organs (LGO), private sectors, and other
development partners. Nowadays, in many African countries, Kenya included,
financing of secondary education is a collective responsibility of parents,
communities and the government. Currently, the government of Kenya channels
funds to schools in form of CDF to develop school projects (GOK, 2008).
Partnership and capacity building have become popular strategies between
intermediary nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the GoK (GoK, 2006).
Resource mobilization perspective of collective political action is developed as a
24
synthetic model specifying the characteristics of local neighborhoods that affect
their capacity to mobilize resources in local community organizations to engage
in secondary education.
2.7 Summary of literature review
Literature review in this study dealt with family’s social-economic, home-based,
school-based and peer pressure factors influencing students to drop out of school.
Besides, the literature review also based on the extent to which government
policies and interventions have been implemented to check on dropout rates and
school-based initiatives to stem students drop out rates. Finally, the study is
anchored on the retention theory by Seidman (2005) whose ideas have been
conceptualized to highlight the complexity of factors influencing drop out of
students.
The study borrows from Seidman (2005) Retention theory which anchors on the
view that although institutions’ fiscal stability continues to be a major concern,
there is a notion of global competitiveness and government support to provide a
new impetus for schools to be interested in student retention. This theory is
supported by Hossler (2005) who states that stagnant persistence and completion
rates of students matter for both the school and society in general. According to
Seidman (2005), students who do not accomplish their personal and academic
goals will surely become a burden to society. Similarly, he (Seidman, 2005)
25
argues that students who do not complete school might, on average, have lower
earnings in future.
2.8 Theoretical Framework; Retention theories, models and concepts
The drop out of students from school over a given period of time reflects the
impact of various social-economic, home-based, school-based and peer pressure
factors, originating from the community and homes/families of the students.
These factors influence the drop out of students directly by influencing the
students’ decision to drop from school, or that of the parent to withdraw the
student from schooling. These variables also indirectly influence the drop out of
students by negatively affecting their education achievements in school
(attendance, learning and academic performance in examinations), this in turn
influences drop out of students. This conceptualization highlights the complexity
of factors influencing dropout of students; most variables are interrelated and
influence each other. Some of the variables influence the drop out directly and
indirectly through their impact on the school achievement of the students.
26
2.9 Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework for this study is as shown in figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Relationship between variable in institutional and home based factors influencing students drop out
The drop out of students from school over a given period of time depends so
much on the impact of various social-economic home-based, school-based and
peer pressure factors, originating from the community and homes or families of
the students. These factors influence the drop out of students directly by
influencing the students’ decision to drop from school, or that of the parent to
withdraw the student from schooling. Head teachers and teachers at school play a
vital role of making the student complete or not to complete school. They do this
by offering guidance and counseling to students seeking ways for the school to
Input Process Output
Socio-economic factors
Home-based factors
Peer pressure
Institutional based factors
Principals’
management of
home based,
institutional factors
to stem the level of
dropout
Student dropout
27
provide bursary for the needy students. These independent variables also
indirectly influence the drop out of students by negatively affecting their
education achievements in school (attendance, learning and academic
performance in examinations), this in turn influences drop out of students. This
conceptualization highlights the complexity of factors influencing dropout of
students; most of these independent variables are interrelated and influence each
other.
28
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
Research methodology in this chapter focuses on the following; introduction,
research design, target population, sample size and sampling techniques, research
instruments, instrument validity, instrument reliability, data collection procedures
and data analysis techniques.
3.2 Research design
The study adopted descriptive survey research design. According to Robson
(2003), descriptive survey design presents people’s profile, events or situations.
Best and Kahn (2006) also note that descriptive survey design seeks to determine
people’s opinions, attitudes and ideas. This study therefore sought to determine
institutional and home based factors that contribute to dropout of boys and girls in
secondary schools. It gathered people’s opinions, attitudes and ideas on school
dropout, and their willingness to give possible ways to deal with school dropout.
3.3 Target population
The study targeted 14 day public secondary schools in Kathiani district in
Machakos County with a total population of 126 teachers and 2660 students
29
(Kathiani District Education Office, 2013). The study targeted only public day
secondary schools because they are controlled by the government.
3.4 Sample size and sampling techniques
The credibility of this research study was be judged by the size of the sample. In
choosing a sample size, this study focused on an optimum of at least 14 day
secondary schools based on a confidence level of 95 percent and the significance
level of 5 percent (Kothari, 2004). The section of students and teachers based on
simple random sampling technique to select 40 teachers and 260 students
Mugenda and Mugenda (1999). The teachers included the form four class
teachers, the guidance and counseling teacher and the deputy principal. Eighteen
(18) students will also be selected per school. All 14 head teachers participated in
the survey. A total of 314 respondents participated in the survey.
3.5 Research instruments
The main instruments for collecting data during the research study were: head
teachers’, teachers’ and students’ questionnaires. The questionnaires were divided
into five parts. Part (I) gathered data on head teachers’, teachers’ and students’
demographic information. Part (II) gathered data on head teachers, teachers and
students views on institutional and home based factors contributing to drop out in
public secondary schools. Part (III) and (IV) were based on the extent to which
government policies and interventions to prevent dropout have been implemented
30
in public secondary schools. Part (V) gathered data on suggested possible
measures of enhancing retention of students in public secondary schools.
3.5.1 Instrument validity
The study employed content validity because it addresses important variables that
influence the questionnaires. The study assumed valid responses from individuals
who might be interested in the topic of study by filling in the questionnaires (Ary;
Jacobs et al., 2006). The content validity was also be established by supervisors
who rendered judgment at the quality of the teachers’ and students’ questionnaires
by looking at the content of the items. In addition a pilot was carried out before
the final study.
3.5.2 Instrument reliability
To attain instrument reliability the raw scores for teachers and students
questionnaires were summarized, corded, edited and then the information
analyzed to reveal the essence of data. The open and closed ended questions were
analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively respectively. The results from the
questionnaires were then used to calculate the reliability using Pearson Product
Moment Correlation Formula (Best & Kahn, 2006).
31
Test retest technique was then used where the respondents were required to fill in
the questionnaires for the first time and after a given period of time they were
tested again and then the information from the first test was correlated with the
second test (Orodho, 2003). The correlation coefficient was then adjusted using
Spearman Brown Prophecy Formula (Best & Kahn, 2006).
r = 2r 1+r
The instruments revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.743 hence were deemed as
reliable.
3.6 Data collection procedures
Research authorization letter sought from the National Council of Science and
Technology (NCST). A copy of the permit was submitted to the DEO, Kathiani
district. The researcher visited the selected schools, created rapport with the
respondents and explained the purpose of the study and then administered the
questionnaire to the respondents. The respondents were assured that strict
confidentiality would be maintained in dealing with the identities. The completed
questionnaires were collected once they had been filled in. Research permit from
the national council for science, technology and innovation (Nacosti) provided
more details.
32
3.7 Data analysis techniques
Both raw qualitative and quantitative data from the field were summarized, coded
and edited to reveal the essence of data (Kombo & Tromp, 2006). Data was then
analyzed both manually and by use of Statistical Package of Social Sciences
(SPSS) (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006).
Graphic illustrations in the form of tables and figures were used to represent the
data and resulting findings. Data gathered was coded for analysis. This was done
after editing and checking out whether all questionnaires had been filled in
correctly. This was then entered in the statistical package for social sciences
(SPSS) software for windows from which descriptions such as percentages (%)
and frequencies (f) were used to answer the research questions. Qualitative data
was analyzed by thematic analysis that was the analysis of the main themes found
in the study and analysis of the contents within the themes presented. The results
were tabulated for ease interpretation. The major themes and patterns in the
responses were identified and analyzed to determine the adequacy, usefulness and
consistency of the information.
33
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter gives a detailed analysis of the research findings followed by
interpretation of the same. In this study, three types of questionnaires were used to
collect data from the respondents. These were the headteachers’ questionnaire,
class teachers’ questionnaire and Form Four students’ questionnaire. The findings
were then tabulated. Responses of a particular type of questionnaire were treated
as a single stratum regardless of their variations in terms of gender experience and
students’ level of education.
4.2 Questionnaire return rate
A total of 14 headteachers’ questionnaires were issued to the respondents and all
were returned. For the class teachers, forty (40) questionnaires were issued and 38
were returned back, representing 95.0%. For the Form Four students 260
questionnaires were issued and 250 were returned back, giving a total of 96.2%.
The data collected was tabulated as per the questionnaire systematically covering
all the times as per the research objectives.
34
4.3 Demographic data of the respondents
It was essential for the study to gather data on the headteachers and class teachers’
background in terms of gender, years taught after completing college and years
taught in the current school. These would directly or indirectly influence student
dropout in day secondary schools. The following section presents the
demographic data of the respondents.
4.3.1 Gender of the headteachers and teachers
Gender was considered important in this study because it could negatively or
positively influence student dropout in Day Secondary Schools.
Table 4.4: Distribution of head teachers and teachers by gender
Gender Headteachers % Classteachers % Total %
Male 8 57.1 20 52.6 28 53.8
Female 6 42.9 18 47.4 24 46.2
Total 14 100.0 38 100.0 52 100.0
Table 4.4 shows that the respondents for this study were predominantly male
headteachers and class teachers. Out of 52 respondents, 53.8% were male head
teachers and class teachers. One gender dominating in a given school can affect
students in one way or another especially when it comes to matters of guidance
and counseling that would call for a male or female teacher or both.
35
4.3.2 Duration that head teachers and class teachers had taught after
graduation
The study sought to find out the duration that headteachers and class teachers had
taught after college. Years taught after college was also another factor to consider
in this study. Respondents’ years having taught since college would determine
their teaching experience and how they could deal with the issues of students
dropping out of school. Data were collected and tabulated as shown in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Headteachers’ and teachers’ responses on years they had taught
after graduation
Years taught after graduation Head Teachers
% Teachers %
1-5 1 7.1 - -
6-10 2 14.3 4 10.5
11-15 1 7.1 4 10.5
16 and above 10 71.5 30 97.0
Total 14 100.0 38 100.0
The results from Table 4.5 indicate that majority of the head teachers (71.5%) and class teachers (97.0%) had taught for 16 and above years since they left college. It was an Indicator that they at least had an experience in the field of teaching. Teachers’ experience could assist in identifying indicators to student drop out and in finding remedies. The data implies that over 90% f the teachers and head teachers had taught for
36
six years. This duration is deemed as adequate for teachers to have gained experience in
teaching and school management and is able to provide information on the institutional
and home based factors that influence students’ drop out.
4.3.3 Headteachers’ and teachers’ years of teaching in their current schools
Headteachers’ and teachers’ years of teaching in a particular school was found to
have an influence on the dropout of students from school. Therefore, the study
was to establish whether this actually was a contributing factor to the dropout of
students in day secondary schools in Kathiani district. The results were then
tabulated as shown in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Teachers’ and headteachers’ responses on the number of years of
teaching in school
No. of yrs in school Head Teachers
% Teachers %
1-5 8 57.1 20 52.6
6-10 5 35.7 12 31.6
11-15 1 7.2 4 10.5
16 and above - - 2 5.3
Total 14 100.0 38 100.0
37
From Table 4.6, a good percentage of headteachers (57.1%) and teachers (52.6%) had just taught for 1-5 years in the current school. Teachers’ experience could assist in identifying indicators to student drop out and finding remedies. This was a clear indicator that they were still setting and adapting to the trend of their schools in accordance to the strategies they had developed. The data implies that teachers and headteachers had a considerable teaching experience in the current school to provide information on the institutional and home-based factors influencing students drop out.
4.3.4 Duration of service as class teacher
The class teachers were asked to indicate the duration they had been class
teachers. The data is presented in Table 4.7
Table 4.7: Duration as class teachers
Duration Teachers %
1-5 10 26.3
6-10 7 18.4
11-15 21 55.3
16 and above - -
Total 38 100.0
38
Table 4.7 indicates that at least a good percentage of class teachers (55.3%) had
served for 11 to 15 years. Class teachers therefore had good information on
factors contributing to the dropout of students in day secondary schools in
Kathiani district.
4.3.5 Type of school
Type of school was another factor to consider. Type of school in one way or
another might influence the dropout of students. Data were collected and results
tabulated in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Type of school
Type of school Headteachers % Students %
Mixed day 9 64.3 200 80.0
Mixed day and boarding 5 35.7 50 20.0
Total 14 100.0 38 100.0
From Table 4.8, majority of the headteachers (64.3%) and students (80.0%)
indicated that most day secondary schools in Kathiani district were mixed day as
compared to mixed day and boarding as indicated by headteachers (35.7%) and
students (20.0%). Students in day schools would be faced with many challenges
compared to those in boarding schools and could easily give up along the way if
not guided well and given support by both teachers and parents. Some parents
even tend to involve these students so much in family chores. Where the family
39
income is too low, these students go out to do some work to get money to sustain
them. This leads to chronic absenteeism which is key to drop out.
4.4 Influence of family’s social-economic background on students’ dropout
Family’s social-economic background may affect students’ continuation in
school. Households’ decisions to send the children in school or to discontinue
their studies depend on the environmental, social and economic compulsions they
are faced with. These are physical facilities in the household, monthly income of
the household, educational attainment of parents and family size. It was therefore
necessary for the researcher to collect data from the respondents and establish
whether some of these stated factors had an influence on the dropout of students
in Kathaini district.
4.4.1 Family size
Family size is one of the factors that influence students’ schooling cycle greatly.
The researcher was to find out how many siblings did the respondent have. Data
on family size is presented in Table 4.9.
40
Table 4.9: Students’ response to number of children in the family
No. of children Students %
0-2 35 14.0
3-5 120 48.0
6-8 80 32.0
Above 8 15 6.0
Total 38 100.0
Results from Table 4.9 indicate that most students indicated the number of
siblings in their families to range between 3-5 (48.0%) and 6-8(32.0%). This
could be a contributing factor to their dropout in schools. This is because when
the number of children in a family is large, parents may not be in a position to
fend for them and providing school requirements hence they are likely to drop out
of school. Family size is one of the home-based factors influencing student drop
out. Given the fact that these students are in day schools, most probably, parents
could be facing some financial problems. If the parent is not stable financially,
therefore, the children could easily drop out of school.
4.4.2 Number of siblings and level of school completed
The researcher went further to find out how many of the students’ siblings have
completed school and up to what level. Data collected were tabulated in Table
4.10.
41
Table 4.10: Number of siblings and level of education completed
No. of children Students %
Primary school 140 56.0
Secondary school 90 36.0
College and university 20 8.0
Total 250 100.0
From Table 4.10, the results clearly indicates that most students (56.0%). stated
that their brothers and sisters completed only primary school. A good number
stated that their brothers and sisters completed secondary schooling (36.0%). Very
few indicated that their sisters and brothers had completed tertiary college and
university (8.0%). This is clear indicator that parents could be financially
challenged and students have to drop out of school at an early age to fend for
themselves and their siblings. The data shows majority of the children were
reported to have completed primary school. It implies that these children are not
able to be models to other pupils in the family and hence it may appear as a norm
that reaching primary school level is fine.
4.4.3 Number of children in the family who dropped school
The researcher went further again to find out from students the number of
children in their families who had dropped schooling. The results were tabulated
in Table 4.11.
42
Table 4.11: Students’ response on the number of children in the family who
dropped out of secondary school
No. of children dropped Students %
1-3 150 60.0
4-7 40 16.0
Above 7 - -
None 60 24.0
Total 250 100.0
From Table 4.11, a good percentage of students (60.0%) indicated that at least 1-3
of their children didn’t complete secondary school. a few others (16.0%) also
stated that at least 4-7 of their children had dropped out of secondary school. This
was a clear indicator that there were students dropping out of secondary school in
Kathiani district. This is clear indicator that parents could be financially
challenged and students have to drop out of school at an early age to fend for
themselves and their siblings.
43
4.4.4 Monthly income of household
Students were asked to state their family’s monthly income. This was because
monthly income of a family would be a powerful prediction of school
achievement or dropout of students. Data were collected and results tabulated in
Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2: Family income per month
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0-5000 5001-
10000
10001-
15000
15001-
20000
ABOVE
20000
20 Students
130 students
75 students
20 students
5 students
The results from Figure 4.2, shows that majority of the students came from
families where monthly income was in the range of Kshs. 5000-10000 (52.0%)
and Kshs. 10001-15000 (30.0%). Families with a reasonable monthly income
would be in a position to support their children complete secondary school. Data
showed that families had relatively low income which may hinder them from
providing school needs for their children.
Amount in Kshs.
Per
cent
age
44
4.4.5 Parental academic support to the student
Students were asked also to indicate if their parents or guardians give support in
their education. Their results were tabulated in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: Students’ response on parental support
Yes
No
97.6% 6%
45
From the Figure majority 97.6% of the students indicated that they receive
support from parents and guardians. Parental support enables students to acquire
quality education, including access to better quality schools, remedial learning
and more support for learning within home. During the financial crisis, schooling
of the students becomes the first casualty in poor households. This may hence
lead to students dropping out.
4.4.5 Other socio-economic factors influencing students’ dropout
Students, teachers and headteachers were required to state reasons that makes a
student to be absent from school. Absenteeism is a key indicator for student
dropout from school. The researcher was to establish reasons for absenteeism by
tabulating data from respondents in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12: Reasons for students’ absenteeism
Reasons for absenteeism
Headteachers % Teachers % Students %
Helping at home 1 7.1 7 18.4 34 13.6 Helping in the shamba
3 21.4 6 15.8 28 11.2
Sickness 1 7.1 3 7.9 25 10.0 Caring for siblings
5 35.7 15 39.5 130 52.0
Engaging in casual work
- - - - 2 0.8
Caring for sick relatives
4 28.7 7 18.4 31 12.4
Total 14 100.0 38 100.0 250 100.0
46
The findings from the Table indicate that there were several reasons leading to
students’ absenteeism in day secondary schools in Kathiani district. Some of the
mainly cited reasons by head teachers (35.7%), teachers (39.5%) and students
(52.0 %) were caring for siblings. The data shows that students were likely to
drop out of school to assist parents or to look after their siblings as parents go for
work.
4.5 Factors related to peer pressure leading to student dropout in secondary
schools
Peer pressure is a major factor that influences student dropout in schools. Failure
of students to find positive social relationships in schools leads to dropout. The
study was to assess the relationships between teachers and students and among
students themselves and data recorded in Table 4.13.
47
Table 4.13: Factors related to peer pressure leading to student dropout in
secondary schools
Factors Headteachers % Teachers % Students %
Mistreatment by teachers
- - 1 2.6 5 42.0
Family attitude and beliefs
2 14.3 4 10.5 60 24.0
Pregnancy for girls
5 35.7 10 26.3 60 24.0
Harassment by colleagues
- 0.0 2 5.3 5 40.0
Indiscipline cases 4 28.6 15 39.5 100 2.0
Discriminated at home and school
- - - - - -
Students negative attitude towards class work
3 21.4 6 15.8 20 8.0
Total 14 100.0 38 100.0 250 100.0
48
The results from Table 4.13 show that there were some factors as a result of peer
pressure contributing to students’ dropout. Majorly cited factors were indiscipline
cases, indicated by 28.6% for headteachers, 39.5% for teachers, and 40.0% for
students. Besides, headteachers (35.7%), teachers (26.3%) and students (24.0%)
indicated pregnancy for girls to be a factor for students’ dropout. These effects
stated were found to have a significant role to students’ dropout. Indiscipline
cases are indicators of student drop out and this could be one of the major factor
in Kathiani district.
4.6 Institutional factors that influenced students’ dropout rates
Having looked at socio-economic factors influencing students’ dropout rates in
Kathiani district, it was also necessary for the study to look at institutional factors
influencing students’ dropout. Institutional factors that make students not to carry
out their studies well in school could be a contributing factor to dropout. Data
were collected and then tabulated in Table 4.14.
49
Table 4.14: Head teachers’ and teachers’ response on institutional factors
influencing students’ dropout
Institutional factors Headteachers % Teachers %
Poor performance of the school 2 14.3 5 13.2
Repeating of classes 1 7.1 2 5.3
Student absenteeism 4 28.6 6 15.8
School levies 6 42.9 18 47.2
Students’ transfer to other schools - - 2 5.3
Inadequate learning facilities 1 7.1 5 13.2
Total 14 100.0 38 100.0
From Table 4.14, the results indicate that 42.9% of headteachers and 47.2% of
teachers reported that school levies majorly contributed to school drop out. It was
followed by student absenteeism which was reported by 28.6% headteachers and
15.8% teachers. The data shows that there were several school factors that
influenced school drop out. Schools experiencing such factors would lead to
students’ drop out.
4.7 Influence of government interventions student dropout
It was vital for the study to determine how government interventions would
influence students’ dropout rates. The study was to find out which strategies have
50
the government adopted to enable students complete secondary school education.
The findings from headteachers were tabulated in Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4: Headteachers’ response of government policies, strategies and
interventions.
Constituency
development fund
Bursary scheme
Scholarships from
banks
Free secondary
education
From Figure 4.4 headteachers’ responses show that at least a fairly good
percentage of students (57.1%) are supported by CDF. Data shows that the
government had put several interventions in school to avert school drop out. The
data further indicates that beside such interventions, there were cases of drop out
of students.
4.8 Respondent’s suggested possible measures to mitigate dropouts
Another issue that the study sought to identify was about the suggested possible
measures to curb dropout of students in day secondary schools in Kathiani
57.1% 21.4%
7.2%
14.3%
51
district. The class teachers, headteachers and students were asked on how to curb
dropouts and the findings were as shown in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15: Headteachers and teachers suggestions on possible measures to
mitigate dropouts
Suggestion Headteachers % Teachers % Students %
Offering guiding and counseling
3 21.4 15 39.4 40 16.0
Starting feeding programmes in school
2 14.3 4 10.5 40 16.0
Offering bursaries to needy students through CDF
3 21.4 12 31.6 80 32.0
Sensitizing parents on the need to educate all children
2 14.3 3 7.9 20 8.0
Employment of qualified teachers by TSC
2 14.3 2 5.3 40 16.0
Implementation of government policy on Education for All in school
2 14.3 2 5.3 30 12.0
Total 14 100.0 38 100.0 250 100.0
52
From Table 4.15, the results indicate that headteachers (21.4%), teachers (31.6%)
and students (32.0%) agreed that there was need of offering bursaries to needy
students if dropout has to be curbed. Solutions to curb drop out from school could
enable education planners allocate resources to students enabling them complete
school. Also, finding solutions calls for support from all stakeholders involved,
hence curbing drop out.
4.9 Summary of the chapter
The chapter was out to establish whether the variables under study would show
the institutional and home-based factors influencing dropout of students in day
secondary schools in Kathiani district. Data analysis established that some
students in day secondary schools in Kathiani district dropout due to fee
problems, family background problems and for others, peer pressure. The study,
however, showed that there were other socio-economic factors leading to dropout
of students. It also established that teachers, headteachers and students suggested
giving of CDF bursaries to needy students, offering guidance and counseling to
vulnerable students, sensitizing parents on the need for educating all children and
providing feeding programmes to needy students in schools in hardship places.
53
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Introduction
This chapter provides the summary of the study, conclusions and
recommendations of the study. The study also offers suggestions for further
research.
5.2 Summary of the study
The purpose of this study was to investigate institutional and home-based factors
influencing student drop-out in day secondary schools in Kathiani district,
Machakos County. Five research objectives were formulated to guide the study.
Research objective one sought to determine the influence of family’s socio-
economic background (culture, parental education, family economic status) in
secondary school students drop out. Research objective two sought to assess the
influence of peer pressure on student drop out in secondary schools. Research
objective three aimed at examining the extent to which government policy on
funding of education influence secondary school students’ dropout rates in
Kathiani district, research objective four sought to establish the institutional based
factors influencing secondary school students’ dropout rates in Kathiani district
while research objective five aimed at coming up with suggestions for mitigating
students drop out among secondary school students in Kathiani district. The study
54
used descriptive survey design. The sample comprised of 40 teachers, 260
students and 14 head teachers. Data were gathered by use of questionnaires. Data
were analysed by use of qualitative and quantitative techniques.
5.3 Summary of the findings
The first objective was to determine the influence of family’s socio-economic
background in secondary school students’ dropout in Kathiani district, Machakos
County. The respondents’ opinions indicate that family’s socio-economic
background may increase students drop out in school. For example students
indicated the number of siblings in their families to range between 3-5 (48.0%)
and 6-8 (32.0%). Thus when the number of children in a family is large, parents
may not be in a position to fend for them and provide school requirements, hence
they are likely to drop out of school. Most students (56.0%) stated that their
brothers and sisters completed only primary school hence did not present a good
role model to other siblings. The findings show that the household’s income
influenced decisions to send the children to school or to discontinue their studies
depends on monthly income of household, educational attainment of parents
besides household income and family size. For example, majority of the students
came from families where monthly income was in the range from Kshs. 5,000
to10000 (52.0%) and Kshs. 10,001 to 15,000 (30.0%). Majority of class teachers
and headteachers viewed the above stated factors to have a great influence to
students’ dropout in day secondary schools.
55
Findings on the second research objective on the effect of peer pressure on
students’ dropout in secondary schools indicated that peer pressure is one of the
major factors that influences student dropout in schools. According to student
respondents, 24% of girls succumb to pregnancy and 40% of students to
harassment by colleagues. This clearly indicates that 74% of the girls did not
succumb to pregnancy and 60% of the students did not succumb to harassment.
For example majorly cited effects were; indiscipline cases, indicated by 28.6% for
headteachers, 39.5% for teachers, and 40.0% for students. Besides, headteachers
(35.7%), teachers (26.3%) and students (24.0%) indicated pregnancy for girls to
be a factor for students’ dropout. It was noted that indiscipline cases and
pregnancy among girls have a significant role to students’ dropout. In addition,
teachers and headteachers identified other issues to be family attitudes and beliefs,
and students’ negative attitude towards class work.
Findings on the of government policies influence students’ dropout indicated that
principals and teachers agreed that despite government policies and interventions
to curb dropout, the dropout rates still remain high in many day secondary schools
in Kathiani district, Machakos county. The late disbursement of free secondary
education funds (FSE) to schools causes the parents to shoulder the cost of tuition
and lunch until disbursement is complete. At the same time bursary allocations for
day schools are lower than boarding schools who benefit from the Ministry of
Education bursary fund which is a higher monetary allocation than to local county
council allocations. Day schools also have lower student populations, hence the
56
impact of the bursary allocations is less. However, they stated that the
government of Kenya has employed the strategy of Constituency Development
Fund to assist needy students.
Findings on the institutional factors influencing students’ dropout revealed that
there were several institutional factors that make students not to carry out their
studies well in school. The response from class teachers and headteachers cited
poor performance of the school, lack of school fees and absenteeism of students to
be the major factors influencing student’s dropout. For example, 42.9% of
headteachers and 47.2% of teachers reported that school levies majorly
contributed to school drop out. It was followed by absenteeism which was
reported by 28.6% headteachers and 15.8% teachers. Besides, teachers, students
and headteachers suggested for the provision of bursaries for the needy students.
In addition, they suggested for guidance and counselling to be provided to
students in school for a change in attitude to accept work on school campus with
their earned income applied to school fees, and to allow parents to work on school
campus with their income applied to school fees.
Seidman (2005) cites the students who do not accomplish their personal and
academic goals will surely become a burden to society. He further adds that
students who do not complete school might have lower earnings in the future.
According to the findings of this study, if students succumb to peer pressure and
if families are unable to pay school levies and if government does not implement
the proper interventions and if the institution itself does not perform properly,
57
students will drop out of school and, therefore, become a burden on society or, at
the very least, have incomes lower than those available to students who do not
drop out of school.
5.4 Conclusions of the study
Based on the findings, it was concluded that:
i. Family’s socio-economic background could act against students’
continuation in school. Some of these social and economic
compulsions arrived at were: monthly income of household and family
size. Families with high income provided more resources to send their
children to school.
ii. Head teachers’ and teachers’ provision of guidance and counselling to
students would enable them complete the four years in secondary
school. Through guiding and counseling also most girls would
achieve their dreams in life by avoiding early pregnancy.
iii. Poor performance of the school, repeating of classes, absenteeism,
lack of school fees, transfer to other schools and inadequate learning
facilities could lead to dropout.
iv. Constituency Development Funds, bursary schemes and free day
secondary school tuition to be provided by the government should curb
dropout.
58
5.5 Recommendations of the study
Basing on the already stated findings and conclusions, the study recommended the
following;
i. Parents to offer full support to their students and also to work hand in hand with
teachers to curb issues of absenteeism and enable students complete school.
ii. Day schools to be equipped with adequate teaching and learning resources to
enable students complete school.
iii. The government initiative in decentralizing and reviewing bursary funds
management to constituency level should be closely monitored. Clear guidelines
should be developed to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in order to increase
access to secondary education.
iv. To address income in inequalities in the society, a special assistance scheme and
preferential policies should be developed to target vulnerable groups such as
students from marginalized communities, students with special needs and
orphaned and vulnerable children.
5.4 Suggestions for further research
The following are the suggested areas for further research;
i. The role Ministry of Education and other collaborating partners to curb dropout in
public secondary schools in Kenya. This could enable in identifying more ways of
funding students to complete school.
59
ii. The relationship between educational level of the parents and the level of
educational attainment of the children.
60
REFERENCES
Alexander, R. (2008). ‘Education for All, the Quality Imperative and the Problem of Pedagogy.’ CREATE Pathways to Access No 20. Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity: University of Sussex.
Alston, M. & Kent, K. (2006). The impact of drought on secondary education access in Australia’s rural and remote areas, A Report to DEST and the Rural Education Program of FRRR, Centre for Rural Social Research (ILWS), Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia.
Becker, G. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. Colombia University Press: New York, NY.
Bedi, A. S., Kimalu, P. K., Manda, D. K. & Nafula, N. N. (2004). The decline in primary school enrollment in Kenya, Journal of African Economies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-43.
Behrman, Jere., Foster, A., Rosenzweig, M. & Vashishtha, P. (1999). “Womebn;s Schooling, Home Teaching, and Economic Growth.” Journal of Political Economy 107 (4).
Bergensen, T. & Heuschel, MN., (2003) Helping students finish school: Why students drop out and how to help them graduate. The Office of Superintendents of Public Instruction, Olympia, WA.
Bickel, R. & Papagiannis, G. (1988). Post high school prospects and district level drop out rates. Youth and Society, 20, 123-147.
Bjorg, C., (2004). Education and Ethnic Minorities in Denmark. PhD Dissertation, Aalborg University.
Bogonko, S.N., (1992), A History of Modern Education 1885-1991, Evans Bros., Nairobi.
Bunya, G.W. (2003) . Interventions that increase enrollment of women in African tertiary institutions.
Chugh, S. (2011). Dropout in secondary education. A study of children living in slums of Delhi. National University of Educational planning and Administration: New Delhi, India.
61
Colclough, C., Rose, P. & Tembon, M. (2000). ‘Gender Inequalities in Primary Schooling: The Roles of Poverty and Adverse Cultural Practice.’ International Journal of Educational Development, 20: 5–27.
Coninger, R. and Lee, E.V. (2001). School dropout Extent of the problem, factors associate with early school leaving, dropout prevention programs and their effects. U.S.
Durdhawale, V (2004) Scenario of Primary School Attendance: A study less development states in India. Seminar paper submitted for the partial fulfillment of the Master in population studies. International institute for Population Sciences, Deemed University.
Duryea, S. & Ersado.A.(2003). School attendance child labor and local labor markets in urban Brazil, paper presented at the Conference on Crises and Disasters: Measurement and Mitigation of their Hieman Costs, 1 DB and IFPRI, USA.
Government of Kenya (2005). Geographic Dimensions of Well-being in Kenya: Where are the poor? From districts to locations, vol. 1, Government printer, Nairobi.
Government of Kenya (2006). Education Statistical Booklet, 1999-2004, Ministry of Education, Nairobi.
Harbison, F. & Myers, C. A. (1964). Education, Manpower, and Economic Growth: Strategies of Human Resource Development. McGraw Hill: Company, New York, NY.
Heneveld, O. (1995) Girls and schools in sub-Saharan Africa: from analysis to action, World Bank. NY.
Hunt, F. (2008). ‘Dropping out from school: A cross-country review of literature.’ CREATE Pathways to Access No 16. Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity: University of Sussex.
Johnson, M. (1998). Universal declaration of human rights: a history of its creation and implementation 1948 – 1998. UNESCO, NY.
Kwame, A. Westbrook & Francies, H. (2010). A School Dropout: Patterns, Causes, Changes and Policies. University of Susses.
Lewin, K. M. (2008). ‘Access, Age and Grade.’ CREATE Policy Brief No 2. Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity: University of Sussex.
62
Lloyd, C .B., Mete, C. & Grant, M. J. (2009). ‘The implications of changing educational and family circumstances for children’s grade progression in rural Pakistan: 1997-2004.’ Economics of Education Review, 28(1): 152-160.
MOE, (2007). Gender Policy in Education. Nairobi: Government Printer.
MOE, (2008). Guidelines on Implementation of Free Secondary Education. Unpublished Report. Nairobi: Ministry Of Education.
MOEST, (2001). Management of the Primary and Secondary Education Curriculum. Nairobi: Unpublished Education Circular.
Mugenda, O.M. & Mugenda, A. G. (1999). Research Methods. Quantitative and Qualitative Approach. Acts Press.
Mutai, K.B. (2000). How to write quality research project: A complete and simplified recipe. New Delhi, ND: Thelley publications.
Opiyo, A.T. (2008). Peer counseling experiences among selected Kenyan secondary schools. KAPC Conference Government of Kenya.
Orodho, J.A (2003) Techniques of writing. Research proposals and reports in education and social sciences (1st ed.) Nairobi: Masda publishers.
Schultz, T.P. (1993). Human capital investment in women and men: micro and macro evidence of economic returns. ICS, Washington, DC.
Seidman A, Lonnie M. & Loretta S. (2005). Retention theories, Models and concepts, Rowman & Littlefield, NY.
UNESCO (2005). Education For All Global Monitoring Report: The Quality Imperative, UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO. (2005). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005: Education for All, the Quality Imperative. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO. (2010). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010: Reaching the Marginalized. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO. (2010). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010: Reaching the Marginalized. Paris: UNESCO Publishing
Watkins, W. H., (2001). White architects of black education: ideology and power in America. Teachers College Press, NY.
63
World Bank (2005). Expanding Opportunities and Building competencies for Young People: A New Agenda for Secondary Education, Washington, DC.: The World Bank.
64
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
Annastasia Kakuvi Mutinda, Department of Educational Administration and Planning University Of Nairobi P.O. BOX 30197 Nairobi
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Research project
I am a post-graduate student at the University of Nairobi pursuing a master’s
degree in Planning and Educational Administration. I am carrying out a research
on ‘A study of institutional and home-based factors contributing to school
drop-out in day secondary schools in Kathiani District, Machakos County’.
The findings in this study are purely for academic purposes in education and
possibly put measures in place to improve the current situation. I therefore kindly
request you to participate in the study by filling the questionnaires as honestly as
possible and to the best of your knowledge. You are therefore asked not to
indicate your name or any other form of identification. Confidentiality of
respondents is highly respected. Your cooperation will be highly appreciated.
Yours faithfully,
Annastasia Kakuvi Mutinda
65
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE HEAD TEACHER
The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect data on the institutional and home-
based factors causing drop out among students in Kathiani district. Your school
has been sampled to take part in the survey.
Instructions
a) Please do not write your name on the questionnaire.
b) The information you will give be treated with confidentiality.
c) Kindly provide answers to the questions as honestly and precisely as
possible.
d) Indicate your choice by a tick (√ ).
e) Kindly answer all the questions.
SECTION A: Background Information
1. What is your gender.
Male Female
2. For how long have you taught since you left college/university? (in years)
a) 1- 5 b) 6 – 10 c) 11 – 15 d) 16 and above
66
3. For how long have you performed your duties as the head teacher in this
school? ( in years)
(a) 1-5 b) 6-10 c) 11 – 15 d) 16 and above
(b) Indicate with a tick (√) the type of your school.
(i) Mixed day and boarding
(ii) Mixed day
4. What is the total number of students currently enrolled in your school?
________________________________________________________
5. How often do the parents/guardians consult about their children
education?
a) Quite often c) Sometime
b) Rarely d) Not at all
6. What are some of the reasons why students in your school are absent from
school? (You may tick more than one answer).
a) Helping at home
b) Helping in the shamba
c) Sickness
67
d) Caring for the younger siblings
e) Engaging in casual work
f) Caring for sick relatives
g) Others specify ____________________________________________
7. Do your students pay school fees promptly?
Yes No
If no, what happens to those who do not pay on time?
a) Given time to pay
b) Parents summoned to school
c) Sent home
d) Others specify ___________________________________________
8. Other than school fees, what other monies are students required to pay per
year?
68
a. PTA/Development fund
b. Meals
c. Remedial teaching
d. Others specify
9. How many times per term do you interact with the students in your
school?
a. Very frequently
b. Frequently
c. Rarely
d. Never
10. Have the students ever complained about mistreatment from their teachers
during class time? Yes No
If yes, what were the reasons for mistreatment and approximately how
many students?
Mistreatment Number
a)
b)
69
c)
d)
11. Have the students ever complained about mistreatment from other students
within the school?
Yes No
If yes, what were the reasons for mistreatment and how many were the
victims?
Mistreatment Number
a)
b)
c)
d)
12. Does your school have a pass mark for the students?
Yes No
If yes, what happens to those students who fail to attain the set pass mark?
a) Do supplementary exams
b) Repeat
c) Mistreatment by teachers
70
d) Other specify ____________________________________________
13. What are some of the causes that make students drop out of school? You
may tick more than one answer.
a) Poverty
b) Poor performance
c) Mistreatment by teachers
d) Mistreatment by other students
e) Pregnancy
f) Family factors/problems
g) Belief that education is costly and waste of one’s time for marriage
h) Others specify ____________________________________________
14. Which class has indicated the highest number of dropouts by students?
Class Number
Form 1
Form 2
Form 3
Form 4
Total
71
15. In your own opinion what measure can be taken to curb the drop outs of
students in Kathiani district?
a) ________________________________________________________
b) _________________________________________________________
c) _________________________________________________________
Thank you very much.
72
APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FORM FOUR CLASS TEACHERS
The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect data on the cause of drop out
among students in Kathiani district. Your school has been sampled to take part in
the survey.
Introduction
a. Please do not write your name on the questionnaire.
b. The information you will give will be treated with confidentiality.
c. Indicate your choice by a tick (√).
d. Kindly answer all the questions.
SECTIONS A: Background Information
1. What is your gender?
Male Female
2. Four how long have you taught since you left college/University? (in
years)
(a) 1-5 b) 6-10
c) 11-15 d) 16 and above
3. For how long have you taught in this school? (in years)
(a) 1-5 b) 6-10
73
c) 11-15 d) 16 and above
4. For how long have you performed the duties of a class
teacher?......................................years.
SECTION B: Issue related to students drop outs from secondary school.
5. How many students were admitted in your class in form one?
6. How many of the original number of students admitted in form one are
currently in form four?
7. If many students are currently in form four classes?
8. If the number of students is less, what caused the difference?(Tick (√)
appropriate reason)
a) Transfer to other schools
b) Repetition
c) Drop out
d) Others specify ____________________________________________
9. How do you compare the drop out of students from your class for the last
three years.
Year Number
2009
74
2008
2007
10. What are some of the factors that made students drop out of school? ( you
can tick more than one factor)
a) Mistreatment by teachers
b) Family attitude and beliefs
c) Pregnancy for girls
d) Harassment by colleagues
e) Lack of school fees
f) Discriminated at school and home
g) Sickness
h) Any other specify__________________________________________
11. What are some of the challenges that are facing students your class? ( you
may tick more than one answer).
a) Absenteeism
b) Lateness to school
c) Lateness for lessons
d) Students negative attitude towards school and class work
e) Lack of school fees
f) Discriminated at school or home
g) Others specify ___________________________________________
75
12. In your own opinion what measures can be taken to enhance retention of
students in school.
a) _________________________________________________________
b) _________________________________________________________
c) _________________________________________________________
Thank you very much.
76
APPENDIX D
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FORM FOUR STUDENTS
The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect data on the cause of drop out
among students in Kathiani district. Your school has been sampled to take part in
the survey.
Instructions
a) This is not a test but an attempt to understand problems connected with
students drop out in secondary schools.
b) Please do not write your name in this questionnaire.
c) Indicate your choice by a tick (√)
d) For blank spaces fill in the correct answer according to your opinion.
e) Any information you give will be treated with confidentiality.
f) Kindly answer all the questions.
SECTION A: Background Information.
1. What is the category of your school?
Provincial district National
2. What is the category of your school
77
Mixed day mixed day and boarding
SECTION B: Issues related to drop out from secondary school.
3. How many of you are there in your family?
Girls Boys Total
4. How many of your sisters and brothers have completed.
a) Primary school _________________________________________
b) Secondary school _______________________________________
c) College and university ___________________________________
5. (a) Please indicate whether you had any of your brother/sister dropping
out of school?
Sister Yes No
Brother Yes No
(b) Please give reasons for this.
(i) ______________________________________________________
(ii) _____________________________________________________
(iii)______________________________________________________
6. How often are you late in getting to school? (Tick one appropriate
box).
a) Always b) Sometimes C) Never
7. If you were late get to school what were the reasons for this?
78
a) ______________________________________________________
b) ______________________________________________________
c) ______________________________________________________
8. Have you ever been absent from school?
Yes No.
If yes, what were the reasons for this? (You can tick more than one
reason).
a) Helping at home
b) Helping in the school
c) Sickness
d) Caring for younger siblings
e) Engaging in casual work
f) Caring for sick relatives
g) Others specify _________________________________________
9. Who pays for your school fees? ______________________________
79
10. How much money do you estimate for your family income per month?
Ksh _____________________________________________________
11. Does your parents/guardians assist support you in your education?
Yes No.
If yes, state how
a) ______________________________________________________
b) ______________________________________________________
c) ______________________________________________________
d) ______________________________________________________
12. When at home how many hours do you spend per day reading or doing
home work? __________________________________________
hours.
13. Are you assigned duties at home by your parent/guardian?
Yes No.
If yes, state approximately how many hours you spend doing these
duties ……………………………………. hours.
14. Please indicate the activities you do at home?
a) ______________________________________________________
b) ______________________________________________________
80
15. Have you ever repeated a class?
Yes No.
If yes, which class did you repeat and why?
a) Form __________________________________
b) Reasons for repeating (you may tick more than one reason)
(i) Poor performance
(ii) Forced by parents
(iii) Forced by teachers
(iv) Others specify ___________________________________
16. What factors interfere with your studies within the school? (indicate
them in order of merit).
a) ______________________________________________________
b) ______________________________________________________
17. What are some of the factors that make students drop out of school?
(You can tick more than one factor)
a) Mistreatment by teachers
81
b) Family attitudes and beliefs
c) Pregnancy for girls
d) Harassment by friends
e) Lack of school fees
f) Discriminated at school or home
g) Sickness
h) Any other specify ______________________________________
18. Suggest measures that can be taken to curb the dropping out of
students in your school?
a) ______________________________________________________
Thank you very much.
82
APPENDIX E
AUTHORIZATION LETTER